Is it a magical? If yes see DMG rules on magic item and if no continue.
Does it require an action to activate the object? Yes.
Is RAW, RAI, and doesn't contain any paradoxes.
It does not activate, and hence does not require an activation to activate. It grants the holder an action which does a thing which emanates from the object, but the action itself does not interact with the object without additional wording that is absent.
Ok! Thanks for the dialogue guys. I gotta say, the only thing that stuck with me was "its up to the DM". Because, really and truly, I would just ask my DM what he thinks. Obviously the SSI mechanics were not written explicitly enough.
Sometimes I think the authors of the PHB just want friends to argue.
Ok! Thanks for the dialogue guys. I gotta say, the only thing that stuck with me was "its up to the DM". Because, really and truly, I would just ask my DM what he thinks. Obviously the SSI mechanics were not written explicitly enough.
Sometimes I think the authors of the PHB just want friends to argue.
It's not so much the PHB. It's more something about Tasha's... Tasha's has a lot more of these situations than the PHB. It feels like it has almost as many of these confusing situations on it's own as all the major source books like SCAG, the EE PDF, Xanathar's, and maybe others I'm forgetting put together. With a fair number of them revolving around Artificer.
If anything they officially answered part of the puzzle in the 2.6 version of the sage advice compendium on page 5. It falls under the "use an object" action which cuts out half the issues. RAI that means an invisible familiar blasting away with a SSI(shatter) is legit.
The DMG states (and I can't remember the page but it's in with the magic item stuff) that magical items specifically do not do the "Use an Object" action so that things like Thieves with certain of their subclass features cannot use them as a bonus action. They instead use the "Use a Magic Device" action instead when they take some kind of action to be used. Which actually does interact with another subclass feature thieves get.
The SSI is not a magical item unless the artificer chooses to make it so. The only criteria are a weapon or something the artificer can use as a spell focus which thanks to tools required can be practically anything.
The artificer could have the SSI be a weapon that also has one of thier infusions which would retroactively make it follow the DMG rules for magical items but a normal dagger with SSI isn't a magic item as far as the rules are concerned.
Except that Nothing about infusions actually says that Infused Items actually follow the rules of the DMG for magical items as per the Disintigration spell specifically (which is actually what makes the distinction) or the fact that they are truely magic items. Just that they function like magic items to varying extent. The magic is just as easily stripped from them as it was given to them. This is entirely an assumption and ruling that we choose to make for them when we try to say that magical item rules apply to them. Magical items themselves as per the DM are at least as durable as any normal item. With Artifacts alone being called out as nearly indestructible.
Edit: It should also be noted that if the Artificer is Disintegrated that even if we allow these items to follow Magic Item rules as far as the the Infused Items are concerned. They still now have a ticking clock put on them that in a matter of days they are no longer magical anyway.
The second part of the first line of the infusion feature explicitly calls infusions magical items.
it also says that are effectively prototypes. While your taking one part you might as well want to take the other part as well. And since Prototype magic items are completely undefined. You end up right back at the situation that nothing actually explicitly says that they function like magic items. Because the only thing that comes close to saying what these prototype items are is the rest of the infusion ability which doesn't make the distinction clear.
How much more explicit could they have made it? They repeatedly call them magical items which have a defined meaning and have rules. Something is ether magical or it's not. The massive decision on healing potions and/or the meaning of magical healing in regard to the lingering injury rules in the DMG. It can get confusing when talking about spells which are magical effects but can produce non magical effects or specific rules like anything that counts as magic for certain interactions, like monk's ki-empowered strike, but usually it's a clear yes/no question.
One could argue that by not casting the SSI more specific rules supersede the general rules for activating a magic item but at face value the SSI is capable of being used with ether action depending on the item it's stored in.
And there is the Design Philosophy problem at it's core. They aren't repeatedly called Magical Items. They are called Magical Items one time. Yet in other ways they aren't magical items or have properties other magical items do not have (like the ability to just purposefully or randomly lose their magic despite mostly not being charge items). They function in a totally unique way that actually causes problems with that very philosophy up until this point. Now they could address this issue and handwave it one way or the other but until they do... Preferably in an errata we have a problem. Because the one place they are called Magic Items isn't even in a mechanical paragraph. it's in a class feature fluff paragraph.
Spell storing is just another example of this. Spell Storing basically works like a specific kind of infusion turned into it's own class feature. But it doesn't explicitly say magic anywhere in it. yet it's functions are that of a type of magical item that already exists, and by their basic check list they once handed out should thus be considered magic because it copies a spell ability that is put into it a set number of times. So it's magic because it functions like a magic item. But it's not magic because nowhere does it say it's magic and they've also said when it doesn't say then it's not magic.
And the Rest of the Infusions follow suit. Except for the name of a couple of the Infusions (another fluff piece and not a mechanic and the way they wrote the like 3 sentence fluff paragraph at the beginning of a class feature. Nothing at all about them says that they are magical, or that they deal magical damage, or anything like that. So we are stuck in between two contradictions given to us by Semi-official channels that are telling us two contradictory things.
Is it a magical? If yes see DMG rules on magic item and if no continue.
Does it require an action to activate the object? Yes.
Is RAW, RAI, and doesn't contain any paradoxes.
It does not activate, and hence does not require an activation to activate. It grants the holder an action which does a thing which emanates from the object, but the action itself does not interact with the object without additional wording that is absent.
That action you take to use it is the items activation. That is how you make it work which is activating it. Not all activations are necessarily direct interactions with the item in question.
Stoutstein is unquestionably correct that infusions are magic items and SSIs are not. There's no rule ambiguity there at all.
However, I am growing more and more inclined each day to declare that producing a spell from an SSI is a new and unique action, exactly like Dragon's Breath, and is none of Cast A Spell, Use Object, or Use Magic Object (the mysterious unnamed action in the DMG for activating magic items). DnD 5E emphasizes that rules only do what they say they do, no more. SSIs don't say anywhere they are used or activated - they say the holder can take an action that does a thing. So, the user can take an action that does a thing. Since no rule anywhere assigns this action a label/type, none is assigned.
It does not activate, and hence does not require an activation to activate. It grants the holder an action which does a thing which emanates from the object, but the action itself does not interact with the object without additional wording that is absent.
Ok! Thanks for the dialogue guys. I gotta say, the only thing that stuck with me was "its up to the DM". Because, really and truly, I would just ask my DM what he thinks. Obviously the SSI mechanics were not written explicitly enough.
Sometimes I think the authors of the PHB just want friends to argue.
It's not so much the PHB. It's more something about Tasha's... Tasha's has a lot more of these situations than the PHB. It feels like it has almost as many of these confusing situations on it's own as all the major source books like SCAG, the EE PDF, Xanathar's, and maybe others I'm forgetting put together. With a fair number of them revolving around Artificer.
And there is the Design Philosophy problem at it's core. They aren't repeatedly called Magical Items. They are called Magical Items one time. Yet in other ways they aren't magical items or have properties other magical items do not have (like the ability to just purposefully or randomly lose their magic despite mostly not being charge items). They function in a totally unique way that actually causes problems with that very philosophy up until this point. Now they could address this issue and handwave it one way or the other but until they do... Preferably in an errata we have a problem. Because the one place they are called Magic Items isn't even in a mechanical paragraph. it's in a class feature fluff paragraph.
Spell storing is just another example of this. Spell Storing basically works like a specific kind of infusion turned into it's own class feature. But it doesn't explicitly say magic anywhere in it. yet it's functions are that of a type of magical item that already exists, and by their basic check list they once handed out should thus be considered magic because it copies a spell ability that is put into it a set number of times. So it's magic because it functions like a magic item. But it's not magic because nowhere does it say it's magic and they've also said when it doesn't say then it's not magic.
And the Rest of the Infusions follow suit. Except for the name of a couple of the Infusions (another fluff piece and not a mechanic and the way they wrote the like 3 sentence fluff paragraph at the beginning of a class feature. Nothing at all about them says that they are magical, or that they deal magical damage, or anything like that. So we are stuck in between two contradictions given to us by Semi-official channels that are telling us two contradictory things.
That action you take to use it is the items activation. That is how you make it work which is activating it. Not all activations are necessarily direct interactions with the item in question.
Stoutstein is unquestionably correct that infusions are magic items and SSIs are not. There's no rule ambiguity there at all.
However, I am growing more and more inclined each day to declare that producing a spell from an SSI is a new and unique action, exactly like Dragon's Breath, and is none of Cast A Spell, Use Object, or Use Magic Object (the mysterious unnamed action in the DMG for activating magic items). DnD 5E emphasizes that rules only do what they say they do, no more. SSIs don't say anywhere they are used or activated - they say the holder can take an action that does a thing. So, the user can take an action that does a thing. Since no rule anywhere assigns this action a label/type, none is assigned.